slide
Success Stories
If you need help in any aspect of immigration law, feel free to contact our office. We invite you to view our success stories.
slide
From Our Clients
Please read our compiled reviews from the internet, from Google to AVVO, on what our clients have said about our firm.
slide
Marriage
One of the fastest and most common immigration cases are those based on marriage to a US Citizen.
slide
Family and Relative Immigration
From immigration of children, parents, siblings, to cases involving 245(i), CSPA, and the death of a petitioner, we are here to help.
slide
H-1B
H-1B petitions for employment in specialty occupations, from computer analysts, engineers, nurse managers, accountants, architects, doctors, feel free to contact us.
slide
Asylum
Past persecution or fear of future persecution on account of politics, race, religion, social group, or nationality. Let us guide you in the asylum application process.
  • CONTACT US

    FREE CONSULTATIONS ............. 5005 Rockside Rd. Ste. 600 Cleveland Ohio 44131 ............. PH: (216) 573-3712 .................... FAX: (888) 513-6917
  • CLIENTS’ CHOICE AWARD

    Juan Paolo Pasia SarmientoClients’ ChoiceAward 2019
    Sung Hee YuClients’ ChoiceAward 2018
  • Success Stories

  • CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
    CLIENT: Ukraine
    LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

    Our client came to the United States in June 2008 with a J-1 exchange visitor visa from Ukraine.  She married a U.S. Citizen in December 2011 and retained our office on January 9, 2012 for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 28, 2012.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On June 18, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS office.  We accompanied them at the interview as well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

    FREE CONSULTATIONS

    If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

      captcha

      For other marriage-based success stories, please click here.

      For other success stories, please click here.

      Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

       

      { 0 comments }

      The July 2012 Visa Bulletin is out, and please be informed that the EB2 Category is not current anymore for Mexico, Philippines, and “Other Countries”. India and China actually have an “unavailable” priority date and it will likely be “unavailable” until the October 2012 Visa Bulletin comes out.  Whereas other countries including the Philippines and Mexico have always been current on the EB2 category, now, based on the visa bulletin for July 2012, the priority date is January 1, 2009. This means that for Mexico, Philippines, and other countries, even if EB2 labor certifications are approved, the I-140 could not be filed simultaneous to the I-485 adjustment of status application. Even if the I-140 is approved, with the priority date listed as 2009, it may take close to 3 years before one can even file the adjustment of status application. For China and India, even those with I-140s approved and priority dates of 2008, 2009, and 2010 could not even file I-485s until the visa numbers become available, and their priority dates current.  Thus, it is very important to maintain non-immigrant status until the priority date becomes current again.

      If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

        captcha

        { 0 comments }

        CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
        CLIENT: India
        LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

        Our client came to the United States in December 2000 as an H-4 visa holder from India.  Although her authorized stay in the U.S. expired in January 2004, she has stayed in the United States since then. In September 2011, she married her U.S. Citizen husband and retained our office on October 11, 2011 for her adjustment of status application. Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on October 24, 2011. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permit all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On February 10, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, OH USCIS. Our attorney accompanied them as well.

        However, after the interview, the CIS office issued a Form I-72 asking for: a civil marriage certificate / abstract for our client and his previous husband, and an explanation as to why this marriage was not listed nor acknowledged during the interview. We reviewed the documents that she provided us after and realized that her previous marriage was only a religious marriage and not registered in the state of Ohio. Under immigration law, a religious marriage is considered a valid marriage for immigration purposes only if it is recognized by the sovereign in that country or state as a valid marriage.  Matter of Ceballos, 16 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 1979).  Since our client’s previous religious marital ceremony was not registered in Ohio, it is not a valid marriage for immigration purposes. On May 8, 2012, our office filed a response to the Request for Evidence which included an affidavit from our client.

        On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 adjustment of status application was approved. After 12 years in the United States, she is finally a permanent resident.

        FREE CONSULTATIONS

        If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

          captcha

          For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

          For other success stories, please click here.

          Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

           

          { 0 comments }

          CASE:  I-485 Adjustment of Status under the INA 245(i) provision
          CLIENT: Chinese
          LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

          Our client is from Hong Kong, China, who came to the U.S. without inspection and admission in August 2001. He never left the United States since he came.

          In March 1990, our client’s uncle filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for his mother.  This I-130 petition was approved in April 1990.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in March 2003.  This Petition was approved in June 2005.

          Our client contacted us in February of 2012 for consultation. We determined that he is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on March 1, 2012.

          Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

          Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already began the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

          On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

          Our client was the beneficiary of his father’s petition in March 2003, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed him to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because he came in 2001, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, he was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of his uncle’s petition for his mother. So it was the two petitions that saved his case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

          Once retained, our office prepared and filed his adjustment of status application under the 245(i) provision. Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  We thoroughly prepared our client prior to his interview.  On June 8, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland USCIS office. Attorney Sung Hee (Glen) Yu accompanied him at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On the same day, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  He finally became a green card holder.

          FREE CONSULTATIONS

          If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

            captcha

            For other 245i success stories, please click here.

            For other success stories, please click here.

            Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

            { 0 comments }

            CASE: Termination of Removal Proceedings with an Approved I-130 Petition / I-485 under the INA 245(i) provision
            CLIENT: St. Lucian
            LOCATION: New York, NY

            Our client is from St. Lucia who came to the U.S. on a B-2 visitors visa in December 2003. Since that time, she never left the United States.  Because of her overstay, removal proceedings was initiated against her in September 2010.

            In May 1986, our client’s aunt filed an I-130 (fourth preference) petition for her father.  This I-130 petition was approved in August 1986.  At the time the I-130 Petition was approved, our client was a minor and was a derivative beneficiary. Later, our client’s father filed an I-130 petition on behalf of our client in February 1998.  This Petition was approved in November of that year.

            Our client contacted us around December of 2010 for consultation and sought legal assistance for her removal proceedings. After the consultation, we determined that she is eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i). Our client retained us on January 13, 2011.

            Section 245(i) of the INA allows certain foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States despite entering without inspection (EWI) or overstaying (if beneficiary of petitions filed not by an immediate relative). Immigrants are barred from adjusting their status if they entered the United States without first being inspected and admitted by a Customs and Border Patrol officer and if they have either failed to maintain lawful status or been unlawfully employed in the country, with certain exceptions. Section 245(i) was first added to law in 1994 to allow certain people who otherwise would not be eligible to adjust their status to be able to do so upon payment of a $1,000 fine.

            Four years later, on January 14, 1998, Congress phased Section 245(i) out of law. Immigrants and their families who had already begun the process of changing their status under Section 245(i) by January 14, 1998 were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. However, this left thousands of otherwise qualified persons who had not begun the process unable to adjust status in the United States. They could not return to their countries to begin the legal process of obtaining their permanent residency in the United States also without being subject to either a three- or a 10-year bar upon returning to the United States.

            On December 21, 2000, Congress extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) benefits to April 30, 2001. This law allowed immigrants who had labor certifications or visa petitions filed on their behalf between 1998 and April 30, 2001, to qualify for adjustment of status. Those who were beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to January 14, 1998 could still adjust despite an EWI record, and those people do not have to meet the December 2000 physical presence requirement.

            Our client was the beneficiary of her father’s petition in February 1998, which is current, but this by itself would not have allowed her to adjust status since this was filed after January 1998 and because she came in 2003, thus not meeting the December 21, 2000 physical presence requirement. However, she was also the beneficiary of a petition filed before January 14, 1998, that of her aunt’s petition for her father. So it was two petitions that saved her case, one for 245i, and the other for adjustment eligibility.

            Once retained, our office promptly filed a Motion to Change Venue from Buffalo to New York.  This was granted and on April 1, 2011, our office filed a request to join in a Motion to Terminate proceedings with an attached I-485 application and its supporting documents. The DHS counsel in New York agreed to terminate our client’s proceedings. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge granted the Motion to Terminate without prejudice on August 17, 2011.

            Once her case was terminated, the USCIS New York scheduled an I-485 interview for our client. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our client through conference call. On May 1, 2012, our client was interviewed at the New York City USCIS office. Attorney JP Sarmiento accompanied her at the interview as well. Due to the complexity of the case, we made sure the officer was clear about our client’s 245i eligibility. On May 30, 2012, our client’s I-485 application was approved.  She finally became a green card holder.

            FREE CONSULTATIONS

            If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

              captcha

              For 245i success stories, please click here.

              For termination success stories, please click here.

              For other success stories, please click here.

              Also feel free to contact us anytime for free consultations.

              { 0 comments }

              CASE: EB-2 I-140 / I-485
              PETITIONER: International Trading Company
              BENEFICIARY: Vietnamese
              LOCATION: San Diego, CA

              Our Vietnamese client from San Diego contacted our office in December 2011. She had an approved PERM Labor Certification and she would like to retain us for her I-140/I-485 application. Her current employer is located in San Diego and they wish to file an I-140 petition for her as a market research analyst. Our client had questions regarding possible issues they may face, the employer’s “ability to pay” issue in particular.

              Once retained, our office prepared her I-140 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application. One of the main requirements for the I-140 is that the petitioning company must show that it has the ability to pay the proffered wage for the beneficiary’s position. Despite the negative taxable income, we provided all schedules of Petitioner’s tax return and argued that their net current assets were over and above the proffered wage. We provided the calculation on the cover letter, cited a CIS internal memo on the “ability to pay” issue, and attached the tax return schedule that showed the net current assets. We also prepared our client’s I-485 application and explained that the priority date for EB-2 Vietnam (“Other Countries”) is current.

              Our office simultaneously filed the I-140 / I-485 applications on January 26, 2012 and on April 19, 2012, the I-140 petition for our client was approved with no Requests for Evidence.  Once the I-140 petition was approved, her I-485 adjustment of status application was subsequently approved by the USCIS on May 24, 2012.  While we were waiting for I-485 approval, our client informed us that he needed to travel abroad.  Thus, we filed an I-131 advance parole application on February 10, 2012.  The I-131 advance parole document was also approved by the USCIS Nebraska Service Center on May 24, 2012 as well.

              FREE CONSULTATIONS

              If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

                captcha

                For other EB-2 success stories, please click here.

                For other success stories, please click here.

                Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

                 

                { 0 comments }

                CASE: Employment-Based Adjustment of Status / Derivative Beneficiary
                CLIENT: Filipino
                LOCATION: Des Plaines, IL

                Our client came to the United States in 2007 with an H-4 visa as a dependent of his H-1B visa holding wife from the Philippines.  His wife was working as a registered nurse in the United States. His wife’s previous employer filed an I-140 petition under the EB-3 classification on her behalf.  The petition was later approved, and our client’s priority date was sometime in August, 2001.  Through our legal assistance, our client’s wife obtained her green card in March 2012.

                In February 2012, our client sought legal assistance from our office regarding his adjustment of status application.  Based on our client’s wife’s approved I-140, our client was eligible to file for adjustment of status.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application and I-765 Employment Authorization Documentation on February 20, 2012.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices and fingerprint appointment all came on time.  On May 16, 2012, the USCIS Nebraska Service Center approved our client’s adjustment of status application.  After a long wait, our client finally became a green card holder.

                FREE CONSULTATIONS

                If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

                  captcha

                  For other employment-based adjustment of status  success stories, please click here.

                  For other family-based green card success stories, please click here.

                  For other success stories, please click here.

                  Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

                  { 0 comments }

                  CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
                  CLIENT: Indian
                  LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

                  Our client came to the United States in May 2008 with an F-1 Student visa from India.  He married a U.S. Citizen in December 2011 and retained our office on December 12, 2011 for his adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on February 1, 2012.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, fingerprint appointment, and work permits all came on time. Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients through conference calls. On May 17, 2012, our client was interviewed at the Fairfax, VA USCIS office.  On the same day, his green card application was approved.

                  FREE CONSULTATIONS

                  If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

                    captcha

                    For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

                    For other success stories, please click here.

                    Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

                     

                     

                     

                    { 0 comments }

                    CASE: Adjustment of Status Based on Approved K-1 Visa
                    CLIENT: Korean
                    LOCATION: Dayton, OH

                    Our client came to the United States in June 2011 as a K-1 visa entrant from Korea.  Our client is the beneficiary of an approved I-129F petition. She came to the United States as a K-1 Fiancée of a U.S. Citizen whom she married within 90 days of her entry. By law, if you married your petitioner-fiancé within 90 days of your K-1 visa entry, you are eligible to apply for adjustment of status (green card) in the United States.

                    Our client contacted our office initially in the middle of August and consulted with us for her adjustment of status application. She retained our office on August 23, 2011.  Our firm quickly prepared and filed the I-485 Adjustment of Status Application on August 29, 2011 one week before her K-1 authorized stay period expired.  Things went smoothly and the receipt notices, and the fingerprint appointment all came on time.  Her work authorization card was issued on November 9, 2011.

                    It is not mandatory to have an adjustment of status interview for an applicant who entered on a K-1 visa.  However, the USCIS may require an interview to test the validity and bona fide nature of the marriage between the Petitioner and Beneficiary. The USCIS did not require an adjustment interview for our client.  On December 5, 2011, her green card application was approved.

                    FREE CONSULTATIONS

                    If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

                      captcha

                      For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

                      For other success stories, please click here.

                      Also feel free to contact our office anytime for free consultations.

                      { 0 comments }

                      CASE: Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status
                      CLIENT: Filipino
                      LOCATION: Cleveland, OH

                      Our client came to the United States in March 2011 with a B-2 tourist visa from the Philippines. She married a U.S. Citizen in June 2011 and retained our office around the same time for her adjustment of status application.  Our firm prepared and filed the I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status Application on July 18, 2011.  Everything went smoothly and the receipt notices, the fingerprint appointment, and the work permit all came on time. There was no Request for Evidence.  Prior to the interview, we thoroughly prepared our clients. On September 19, 2011, our client was interviewed at the Cleveland, Ohio USCIS. Attorney Sung Hee Yu accompanied them at the interview as well.  On the same day, her green card application was approved.

                      FREE CONSULTATIONS

                      If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

                        captcha

                        For other marriage-based green card success stories, please click here.

                        For other success stories, please click here.

                        Should you have questions, feel free to contact our office for free consultations.

                        { 0 comments }